Orlando shootings likely to impact security at theme parks

Brett, Demonkrats are also the fools who think that they can make peace by showing compassion and love with muslims who are trying to kill them.. At least the independents which I am don't believe in double speak or kiss the donkey's rear end.

Screamlord: Since you're resorting to name calling and not logical arguments, your position is not interesting or worth responding to. If you want me to respond, then be respectful the way everyone else has. You're also getting dangerously close to racism, and if you want to post here, you should stop.

I'm not wrong. While the 1994 ban was flawed in many ways in terms of the criteria it used to describe "assault weapons," it was challenged on several grounds, but never on 2nd Amendment grounds, likely because the case could not be made. Caetano does not set precedent to guns in any way, because the case was about stun guns. Furthermore, the Constitution only makes one explicit prohibition on the limitation of rights, and that's for the 1st Amendment ("Congress shall make no laws..."). Even then, the courts have upheld laws around libel and defamation. The courts have always, since the passage of the Bill of Rights, acknowledged that the rights are not unlimited.

Remember, there are weapons that are illegal today. You can't defame someone and not get sued (1st Amendment). You can't carry a gun into a school or make one with less than 3.7oz of metal (2nd Amendment). The Patriot Act does all kinds of warrantless searches, though maybe they would be contested if anyone knew the extent of them (4th Amendment). You can be held in contempt of court and be held indefinitely if you don't spill what you know (5th Amendment). If they think you're a terrorist, they can hold you without charging you or taking you to trial (6th Amendment). Cruel and unusual punishment has been evolving for 200 years, which is why capital punishment is slowly going away (8th Amendment).

So yeah, singling out the 2nd Amendment as a broad absolute I think is not viable. There's too much precedent showing the government can limit what it means because the Constitution itself allows for it.

Jeff, I am stating a fact which you can't handle. You have no facts to support your argument other than the standard BS that democrats use time and time again. Vatar proved my point. The fact is that you have no right to limit my ownership in any semi-automatic weapon. Your desire to ban the Ar-15 is based on lies by the democrats who don't know squat about what they are talking about. Did I say another about carrying guns to schools and the things you mention. Jeff, racism is in the eye of the beholder and There is nothing I have said that is racist at all. You make me laugh at yuour own mistakes in that you claim that you aren't wrong but you are when you said that you wanted to ban Ar-15's and you can't point to where it says in the US constitution that congress can make laws banning weapons. What part of shall not be infringed don't you understand. Congress and the USSC can't make laws that infringe on the second amendment.

I used to respect you Jeff but you have shown your true colors lately in that you want to take away my right to own any military style weapon in which you dislike based on lies told by democrats.

Jeff, you have proven my point in that you want to ban people who's opinion you hate. Automatic weapons were outlawed since the 1970's but you can still buy them if you jump through the hoops and pay very high prices.

I just don't understand why folks need semi automatic weapons for any other reason than they feel entitled to having them and they have an irrational fear of one of us liberals showing up to take them away.

Hey Brett, only fools would think like you do. Even the demonkrats in Congress don't believe in thier own BS they spew but expect limmings like you to.

Like I stated, you don't have to own one since you ride the coat-tails of those that do for your protection. Just don't tell me and others that they can't own one because of your own dislikes which are usually on emotion not logic.

BrettV said:
I just don't understand why folks need semi automatic weapons for any other reason than they feel entitled to having them and they have an irrational fear of one of us liberals showing up to take them away.

What type of firearm do you feel is ok for folks to own?

Brett, you just proved my point in that you want to take them away. That is the ultimate goal of the demonkrats. I bet you want to play nice with the muslims who are killing people just like in Orlando. I will say this to you what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand.

Screamlord: I'll ask you one last time to stop with the name calling.

Screamlord said:

Jeff, I am stating a fact which you can't handle. You have no facts to support your argument...

You mean other than my entire previous post?

you can't point to where it says in the US constitution that congress can make laws banning weapons.

Actually, yes, I did. Congress can make any laws that it wants, and the courts will validate the constitutionality of them. That's how our government works.

Now, if you want to get really academic about it (I suspect that I'm wasting my breath at this point), the courts have generally accepted that it has to balance the enforcement of rights to the extent that one right can't come at the expense of someone else. That's why all of the limitations I mentioned in my previous post stick. You can't commit perjury and call it free speech, for example, because it interferes with the right to a fair trial. It's a limitation of the 1st Amendment. You keep talking about "shall not be infringed" but fail to understand what it even means. The courts have always used a framework of other parts of the Constitution, specifically the duties enumerated by Article I when it comes to legislation, and often Article II when it comes to enforcement, to test the limitation of rights as outlined by those legislative and executive powers. That's why it is legal today, right now, to restrict and prohibit the sale of certain weapons and require background checks. That's the law... not your simplified four words taken out of context.

Vater's question about where you draw the line is a pretty good question, and it's the discussion that apparently no one in Washington wants to have in earnest. Those calling for more restrictions are not trying to abolish the 2nd Amendment, any more than its advocates are suggesting we all start carrying shoulder-mounted grenade launchers. I think that's the core of the debate: What type of weapon is "reasonable" for protection of self and property, and what type of weapon diminishes public safety and the desire to pursue life and liberty? The Orlando shooting is very much about that question, as it happened in a place where the LGBT community could generally feel safe and free to be who they are.

I don't know what the answer is, what the "right" amount of gun is. Taking the ideological position that there is no limit is not realistic, nor is it constitutionally correct.

you want to take away my right to own any military style weapon in which you dislike based on lies told by democrats.

I don't want to do anything other than have a logical and respectful discussion, which you appear incapable of. I don't "hate" anyone, but I take issue with anyone who hates others for reasons of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. You can't wave the flag and make a case for freedom if you can't concede that it's an entitlement for everyone. You also can't start assigning blame to any one party. Of those enduring laws around guns, half passed in our lifetime were signed by Republican presidents, including FOPA and the Undetectable Firearms Act (Reagan), the Gun-Free Schools Act (first Bush). Know your history. You're the only one making this partisan.

Yeah. I don't think people should own weapons that are designed to end human lives. It is not necessary for anyone to own those. It's like me saying that I have the right to drive around a van full of explosives. I hope people do not have the right to do that. Do they?

Laws are made to protect people. How do we protect ourselves from a mass-murdering gunman? Should we all be packing? Should we be living in the wild west or in a gangster movie? If the answer isn't to keep the weapons of mass murder out of the hands of crazy people, then what is it?

Also, I think that You are wrong, Screamlord, but not because of your opinion. It's because of the way you deliver your opinion. When you get all heated because you don't agree with someone else's perspective on a hot topic issue, respect for you goes way down. You have to show respect to gain respect. What a great opportunity you are missing out on. You could agree to disagree, and listen, and offer up your opinions, and get along, and learn, and teach. Instead, your opinion is right, and whoever disagrees is a Demoncrat, or a Berniebot, or a Killary fan, or a libitard, or whatever. I'll reiterate, you need to show respect to gain respect.

And I'm not perfect. No one is. No one has everything 100% right. And that's okay. It's fine. Americans need to upgrade from all these hateful feelings towards those we disagree with. We can do better. If you disagree with that, that's fine.

When discussing politics and one says a clever, creative insult once (i.e. demonkrat) it makes it quick and easy for us to see where you stand and what you think of the other side. Perhaps even a quick little "I see what you did there." Personally, I'm okay with that... when done ONCE.

It stops becoming clever the 2nd time. By the 3rd it's tedious, childish and stubborn. And what makes me want to have an intelligent discussion with that? Honestly, you could be presenting the cure for gun murders as we know it, but I'm so distracted and put-off that I won't even see it. Of course, in your mind, you probably think that you *are* presenting the cure for gun murders as we know it.

(Full disclosure, I don't identify as Rep or Dem, so no, I'm not taking it personally)

Jeff as I stated, I know the facts and you use emotions to try and bully your point of view. The fact is that democrats do want to take away guns from the citizens. New York Rep. Charlie Ragner admitted that guns are for politicians not us citizens. Look at what happened in the house of Representatives. The democrats held the house hostage while they had a sit in on gun control which is illegal by house rules and should be sent to the iron bar hotel for a few days.

To all those who think that I am wrong can kiss my ass. I know I am right on this and I don't believe in being PC about what I say. By the way Jeff, this isn't the first time you have threaten to ban me for my opinion on your pc agenda.

Literally all you have done is prove Jeff's point. No one cares if you are Democrat, Republican, etc. As long as you are respectful with your opinions and provide knowledge based and civil discourse, I will happily get along with anyone regardless of political belief or affiliation. I am a newer member to these forums but have lurked for over a decade. If you are banned, it will have nothing to do with your political affiliation or beliefs, even though that is what you will choose to believe. Instead it will have everything to do with the mean spirited and downright offensive way you have chosen to express those beliefs.

And to double post, even though I know I shouldn't... there is such a difference between being or not being politically correct and being or not being obnoxious and offensive. Saying you don't want to be "PC" as a justification of being downright mean doesn't excuse the meanness.

I'm not sure how arguing law from an academic and historical context is emotional, but whatever. I don't think anyone can say that I was impatient with him. I thought the rest of us were having a solid and spirited debate before that.

Back on it though... I'd like to explore the question that I had, derived from Vater's question, about how one determines where the line is drawn when it comes to the availability of weapons. I think it can be agreed that there is a line (we can't drive tanks, after all).

Why can't we drive a tank? Screamlord says we have the constitutional right to:) Jeff - are you squelching my rights???

Funny enough, my personal opinion is that we should be allowed to own tanks. Seriously. Come to think of it, a tank in my front yard would be a nice deterrent. :)

But the "limitations" to the 1st amendment that Jeff pointed out are not truly limitations because speech used to incite riot or terror, or infringe on others' rights (slander), is not really a free speech issue. Any infringement on an another individual's rights cannot be considered protected by the constitution. That said, we don't ban words; rather, the individual who incites riot or whatever is dealt with accordingly. In the same vein, when an individual uses a legally-owned firearm to infringe on another's rights, we should ban the weapon? Makes no sense. That individual should rightly lose, among other things, their 2nd amendment right.

Jeff brought up the 18th amendment, which I agree was dumb (and was repealed). All we have to do is look at history to see that banning alcohol was a complete failure. Alcohol kills over 3 times as many people as firearms, and yet we're talking about banning only a mere fraction of gun types. Imagine if only hard liquor or wine or beer was banned. Think of all the lives that would have been saved! :/

Fun factoid: ONE gun store in Pennsylvania sold 30,000 AR-15s in 5 days since the Orlando shooting. People blame the massacre for the rise in gun sales, but it's an indirect correlation; the real reason we see spikes like this is because of the inevitable threat of losing our right to bear that immediately follows any such event. This always happens, yet gun crime statistics generally drop year after year.

Screamlord said:

To all those who think that I am wrong can kiss my ass. I know I am right on this and I don't believe in being PC about what I say.

I know this is somewhat moot since he's gone now and we've already gone back to the original discussion, but I feel the need to address this. If you're interested in convincing others to join your side, this approach doesn't help. Whereas if you're merely interested in "being right," well then I guess you can do that all you want, and maybe rub one out while you're at it for good measure. But if you're really so frustrated that more people don't agree with you, if you have any intention of winning them over, maybe a slight bit of decorum is in order.

Contrary to popular belief, people really can be persuaded by online discussions. I know my political views have certainly been shaped by online discussions I've had with friends, strangers, people from all walks of life, dating back to the AOL and (gasp) Prodigy days. So it's not entirely wasted time to actually put some thought into what we say.

Just wanted to point out that I never got an answer to my question from BrettV. I'm genuinely curious.

Sorry, it got lost in the shuffle.

Like Jeff pointed out above somewhere, I'm honestly not sure and I think that is where discussions need to happen in a rational and civil manner. I have never been a firearm owner and can't envision a situation where I ever would be. Owning or carrying a firearm would not make me feel safer in a situation.

I just can't fathom a reason why a civilian would need a semi automatic weapon. There may be valid arguments, I just haven't heard one that I agree with yet.